As gun battles raged, killing dozens on the streets of Bangkok these past few days, it has become increasingly painful to remember that just over a decade ago, Thailand seemed the most stable and modern democracy in Southeast Asia. Thais boasted a new, liberal constitution and the first freedom-of-information law in the region. The Thai press was self-assured and free, and local nongovernmental organizations were preaching the gospel of democracy and human rights to their neighbors.
As a Filipino journalist traveling to Thailand in the second half of the 1990s, I marveled at the confidence of Thai politicians, activists and journalists. They saw themselves at the crest of the democratic wave sweeping Southeast Asia, especially after the fall of Suharto in Indonesia in 1998. Filipinos felt the same way: Having ousted dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986, they considered themselves the pioneers of democracy in the region.
How things have changed. Today Thailand and the Philippines demonstrate democratic decay rather than renewal; the optimism of the 1990s is now a mirage. Since then, these two countries have been shaken by corruption scandals, antigovernment conspiracies and violent mass protests staged by followers of populist and anti-democratic leaders.
The problems are rooted in the contradictions of the democratic enterprise. In the Philippines and Thailand, democracy has largely been an elite and middle-class project. In 1986, Filipino businesspeople, lawyers, teachers and university students joined nuns and priests as they prayed in front of tanks manned by soldiers loyal to Marcos. The troops refused to fire, forcing Marcos and his family to flee the country.
In Thailand in 1992, well-off protesters used mobile phones to coordinate massive demonstrations against army commander Gen. Suchinda Kraprayoon, the leader of a military coup that had ousted the civilian government. The protests were brutally crushed, prompting the king to intervene, thereby ending the violence and paving the way for the return to civilian rule.
These two events showed the potency of out-of-power elites and a politicized middle class straining at the leash of authoritarian rule. The urban pro-democracy movements led by the educated and affluent set the stage for the enactment of new constitutions guaranteeing civil liberties, competitive elections and other reforms.
Those who were relatively well-off in the cities benefited from the democratic space. But they failed to institute a more inclusive politics, and now both countries have higher levels of income inequality than Indonesia and Malaysia.
It was really only a matter of time before populist politicians came along — Thailand’s Thaksin Shinawatra and the Philippines’ Joseph Estrada — and tapped into the growing resentment among the poor, who were denied a seat at democracy’s table. They were elected by landslides because they appealed to the poor.
Both men were eventually ousted from power through undemocratic means. Reeling from corruption scandals, Estrada fell in a second “people power” revolt in Manila in 2001, just halfway through his term. Thaksin hung on a while longer but was overthrown in a military coup in 2006.
Today there is an impasse on the streets of Bangkok. Thaksin’s Red Shirt followers are using the weapon of mass protest that the elites now in power wielded in 1992 — and again, a decade later, in their attempts to oust Thaksin. The future of Thai democracy seems precarious. Neither side will accept elections or street protests as the ultimate arbiter of who gets to run the country.
In the Philippines, electoralism has triumphed. Benigno Aquino III will soon assume the presidency. Estrada has chosen to contest power through the polls. He polled second to Aquino, but his populist vice-presidential running mate — Makati City Mayor Jejomar Binay — appears to be winning.
If he does, then the country will have a president from the hacienda and a vice president from the slums. The former is an untested political heir; the latter, an Uzi-wielding local boss — as good an indication as any of the electoral choices Filipinos have.
Forty years ago the president-elect’s father, then-Senator Benigno Aquino Jr, famously said: “The Philippines is a social volcano.” One need look no further than Congress and local governments to understand what he meant. Today, a few hundred families control elective posts. Some of them, like the new president’s own clan, have been in power for four generations.
For the poor in the Philippines and Thailand, democracy has not meant liberation. It was simply the new face of domination.
The crisis in Thailand and the recent election in the Philippines offer fresh opportunities for renewal. Both countries need a new social contract, one that guarantees what democracy has thus far failed to provide: a voice for the majority of citizens and accountability for those who wield power.
Sheila S Coronel
South China Morning Post May 20, 2010
Theda Skocpol is correct!!!
In terms of long term impact, her emphasis of the importance of the state (visible in the very title of the book) and (that's one of the crucial points Skocpol differs from Marx) the conception of the state as an independent actor within society and partially autonomous from other interests has been important in shaping later thought in political science.
The book is structured as a comparative historical analysis of the French Revolution of 1789 through the early 1800s, the Russian Revolution of 1917 through the 1930s, and the Chinese Revolution of 1911 through the 1960s. Skocpol argues that these three cases, spread over about a century and a half, are fundamentally similar instances. By analyzing how the social institution of the state changed and influenced the social change, the book can also be placed within the historical institutionalism paradigm.
Rich-poor divide underpins Thai crisis By Kevin Voigt, CNN
(CNN) -- A rift between Bangkok's economic elite and the growing clout of Thailand's rural poor is feeding a unique divide in a country that is no stranger to political turmoil.
"We have had conflicts in 1973, 1976 and 1992, but this is unlike anything we've seen before," said Sukhumbhand Paribatra, the governor of Bangkok, as government troops moved on the area near the city's business district where thousands of protesters have been encamped since March. "Those conflicts were more political, but here they go right into the heart of society."
Past divisions where more a clash of political personalities than a class division, said Paul Quaglia, a former CIA officer and head of PSA Asia, a Bangkok-based security firm. Access to affordable telecommunications across Thailand also is helping transform the nature of this conflict.
"It's impossible to overstate how important the ability of the rural poor to communicate beyond government censors has been in this protest," Quaglia said. "Everyone has cell phones, everyone has access to the Internet, to Twitter; the community radio stations in rural areas have been very active."
Moreover, the health of the nation's revered king has raised questions over the future role of the monarchy in Thailand, Quaglia said.
King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 82, has been hospitalized since September after complaining of fever and fatigue. King Bhumibol, the world's longest reigning monarch, wields little direct political power, but serves as a stabilizing force in Thai society. "We may be coming to a time when there is a sea change in the unofficial control the monarchy has on society," Quaglia said.
"It's becoming more about why 2 percent of the population gains 80 percent of the GDP," Quaglia said.
Class barriers and class differences are now at the heart of the conflict, the Bangkok governor told CNN.
"In Thailand, there is a great deal of social mobility, especially mobility upwards ... this is one of our strengths," Sukhumbhand said. "I think we have to go back to the traditional values of our society and build from the ruins we have witnessed today and are continuing to witness."
Indeed, the street scenes of dark smoke rising against the backdrop of tanks and gunfire is hard to reconcile with Thailand's reputation as the tolerant "land of smiles." The Southeast Asian nation draws millions of visitors to its pristine southern beaches and to tribal areas in the mountains north near the Laos and Myanmar border.
Thai Finance Minister Korn Chatikavanij told CNN that outside of the areas directly affected by the protests and military crackdown business continues in most of Thailand. However, he acknowledges the damage that the conflict has done to tourism, which accounts for just over 6 percent of the country's total economic output.
Many foreign companies have moved executives and their families out of the center of Bangkok and closer to the international airport in case they need to evacuate, said Quaglia, the security specialist.
There also has been a sell-off in Thai stocks by foreign investors. The Stock Exchange of Thailand closed after its morning session Wednesday due to the escalating conflict on Bangkok streets.
"Investor sentiment is shot," said Korn, the Thai finance minister. "However, our stock market is robust -- in fact, it went up yesterday (Tuesday)."
"Thailand is an open economy ... we will recover from this," Korn said. "The economics I'm less concerned about ... What I'm worried about is the political division and social division."
He said the government has done a poor job communicating all it has done to subsidize rural farmers, bolster education and increase the social safety net for aging citizens.
"This message has not been received sufficiently at the rural level -- the perception is that we haven't done enough for the rural poor, although the reality is something different," Korn said.
